[justme]

Can you imagine if Amtrak would go high speed...Not only greener but, more enjoyable?

I think you'll find that trains are in fact NOT greener than airlines when you take the whole picture in to account.

I remember at one time paying for 199 dollars for a round trip from VA to CA on USAir (when it was called that). I got food, leg room, and free headphones for movies.

You "remember" at one time you paid that. And that's fine, but how long ago are we talking? The era of airline travel being exclusive and upscale was far before you could get a ticket for $199. I wasn't talking about 7 years ago, I was talking about 30+ years ago.

When I vacation I vacation....so what if I am on their for 3 days.

When I vacation, I don't want to spend 6 days getting there and back. Not to mention I don't vacation in places that a train could get me to. Last I checked I can't get from ATL to Asia, Europe, Africa, South/Central America, and certainly not the Caribbean. Ok, maybe I could get to a few places in Mexico, but again, why waste 6 days getting to and from somewhere when I can get there in a few hours?

because, you maybe out of a job.

Nah, if Amtrak did somehow manage to dominate the industry I'm sure I'd have a job with them.

[JMOThanks]

justme

Well since you work for a airline and that is your business. I will not trust you have a bias opinion on any other travel but, taking a plane.

I have found several articles regarding Amtrak being "green". I believe we were talking domestically...not international. That isn't a case to argue. I am sure you get free travel to anywhere you want. But, for the PAYING folks like myself..do not get to travel overseas at a drop of a hat. I guess you can not take a train across the ocean.

I did see that ONE Article regarding your argument.. I have more

So here is my argument.

http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tra...l-reasons.html

http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-green/tips/1637

http://www.seat61.com/CO2flights.htm

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/faqs/environment.htm

I can find more if you want...

O.K...I need to stop preaching to a person who doesn't care.

[justme]

I did see that ONE Article regarding your argument.. I have more

I get it... just because you can find more articles means you're right and I'm wrong. Fine, I'll breakdown why your articles don't convince me.

1. planetgreen - it's 5 reasons why you should ride trains to reduce CO2 emission. Problem is, 4 of the 5 have NOTHING to do with emissions at all. Scenery, relaxation, people, and price have NO impact on CO2 output what-so-ever. Also, they don't have any evidence to back themselves up. They're simply stating their opinion hoping you'll believe it without asking questions. Obviously you have.

2. dailygreen - they're comparing a train to a car, not air travel. That pretty much renders this one irrelevant don't ya think?

3/4. seat61/cahighspeedrail - for starters the article starts with the following sentence: "It's not an exact science, and I'm certainly no expert." But the real reason I'm not convinced is because they fail to take in to account anything other than emissions produced from propulsion from one place to another. What about the footprint of the tracks, the production of asphalt, tar, and iron, used in RR tracks, maintaining the tracks, producing the fuel for the trains, etc. The article I cited took ALL of this into account, and compared "full life-cycle" emissions, yours do not.

Now, with all of that said, I think there is definite benefit to using light rail systems for mass transit in urban areas instead of everyone driving their huge SUV with only 1 person in it. That's a no-brainer. But for distance travel such as vacations, airplanes are the way to go for me. And you're right, flying for free does have something to do with that, but I also take our environment very seriously and do everything I can to reduce my impact. I grow my own garden, I compost my trash, I ride a small motorcycle instead of driving a "gas guzzling" car or truck, I utilize solar panels and plan on getting a personal wind turbine soon. Obviously you prefer riding a train for your own reasons, and I prefer an airplane for my own reasons. One of which I believe is that they, while not perfect, are better in the long run for the environment than trains. I'm ok with agreeing to disagree.

[JMOThanks]

Originally Posted by justme

I
2. dailygreen - they're comparing a train to a car, not air travel. That pretty much renders this one irrelevant don't ya think?

Please read it again...Once again you are incorrect...

Think rail for vacation travel, too, instead of hopping a plane for a short trip.

Read more: http://www.thedailygreen.com/going-g...#ixzz0tilhrK2T

[justme]

Please read it again...Once again you are incorrect...

You should be reading your own articles again since you are the one who is incorrect... They in fact DO NOT COMPARE train emissions to airline emissions.

Think rail for vacation travel, too, instead of hopping a plane for a short trip.

This one sentence makes it relevant to air travel? I don't think so. All the data they use in their article is comparing CARS to TRAINS. Not a single comparison was made to an airplane. And is this really the only rebuttal you have to me breaking down your articles? Guess you weren't captain of the debate team.

[JMOThanks]

Originally Posted by justme

You should be reading your own articles again since you are the one who is incorrect... They in fact DO NOT COMPARE train emissions to airline emissions.



This one sentence makes it relevant to air travel? I don't think so. All the data they use in their article is comparing CARS to TRAINS. Not a single comparison was made to an airplane. And is this really the only rebuttal you have to me breaking down your articles? Guess you weren't captain of the debate team.

The article was only 2 paragraphs...but it still supports my claim...Most so in Europe whereas the trains there are mostly electric...Yes Amtrak does run on a bio-diesel...Here is a article NOT written by Amtrak...

http://americanfuels.blogspot.com/20...biodiesel.html

As for as asphalt, steel for tracks...Those things are already in place...and they do need repair...

Yes they are alot of things that humans have done to harm the earth but, claiming that airlines don't do that much damage is CRAZY...Just think how close the fuel gets to our Ozone from a plane. I am not only saying passenger planes hurt the Ozone but, military jets are worst..

Look at the sky on a clear blue day...what do you see? Jet streams...so what is jet streams?

I am saying we can agree to disagree but, do not even say I don't know what I am talking about...I do!!!

Thanks

Oh just a thought...Have you ever taking a train for pleasure? I don't look at the days as a waste of time...I make it part of my vacation. Our country is beautiful from Lake Tahoe to the Rockies to the Mississppi River or the sunrise in the Utah's deserts..and you just can't get to relax and take in all that beauty on a plane...

This is the last from me...

[jimworcs]

This argument will run and run. There is evidence to suggest that the emissions in the high atmosphere are more damaging that those at the surface. It is also without doubt significantly less polluting to take the train for short haul journey's. The other factor is that the "infrastructure" argument could work for largely undeveloped infranstructure countries such as China... it certainly doesn't work for Europe or parts of the NorthEast US, where the infrastructure carbon has already been spent.

The New Scientist article also doesn't address the fact that air travel doesn't actually take you to where you want to go. Trains tend to run city centre to city centre, so the journey is virtually complete. ~Airports tend to take you to some place well outside the city.. and then require further infratructure (and thus carbon) to actually take you to where you were going.

The truth is, as with all of these things, it is not either/or. We need to reduce gas guzzling car usage, and in particular, to price gas realistically based on the true environmental cost. We then need alternative fuels including solar, wind, nuclear, tidal etc.. and we need to increase the costs of travel to reflect the damage it does.

[justme]

This is the last from me...

I have said the same, and very rarely follow through with the threat... knowing that, I will keep the convo going.

The article was only 2 paragraphs...but it still supports my claim

I am still dumbfounded... How on earth does it support your claim that airplanes are more harmful than trains, when there is ABSOLUTELY NO data that has anything to do with airplanes!?! The entire, 2 paragraph, "article" only speaks about CARS and TRAINS, then at the end, almost as an afterthought, the author says, oh yeah, take trains for vacation too!

http://americanfuels.blogspot.com/20...biodiesel.html

Quite honestly, I didn't even bother reading this for 2 reasons. One, based on your other "sources" I surmised that it probably wouldn't be relevant. Two, it's a blog... which means it's just some random person's opinion.

As for as asphalt, steel for tracks...Those things are already in place...and they do need repair...

Do you really think that the US has the infrastructure in place to run a serious train transit system? I think that with a little research, and comparison to EU, you will find that we (the US) are seriously lacking in the rail department.

Yes they are alot of things that humans have done to harm the earth but, claiming that airlines don't do that much damage is CRAZY...Just think how close the fuel gets to our Ozone from a plane. I am not only saying passenger planes hurt the Ozone but, military jets are worst..

What I am saying is that taking into account the "full life-cycle" of an airline versus a train operator, the airline produces less of a carbon footprint. As far as a "plane" doing more damage because it is closer to the ozone, you have got to be kidding. I just don't know what else to say, oh, I know... maybe we should just fly the airplanes lower!! That'll fix it! And as far as military jets being worse... I'm not sure about the actual emissions being more, but I do know that they are not subject to the same noise restrictions as commercial jets.

Look at the sky on a clear blue day...what do you see? Jet streams...so what is jet streams?

I'm really hoping this isn't a serious question. I do indeed know what "jet streams" are (if by jet streams you mean contrails), they are simply condensed water droplets. A cloud would be another therm you may be familiar with. A contrail is formed by warm, moist air which passes through the engines of a jet and then comes into contact with cold air, causing the water to precipitate out and condense. So, as you can see, "jet streams" are indeed NOT pollution, but in fact only artificially created clouds.

I am saying we can agree to disagree but, do not even say I don't know what I am talking about...I do!!!

I think you are coming close to showing that you actually don't have any clue what you are talking about.

Oh just a thought...Have you ever taking a train for pleasure? I don't look at the days as a waste of time...I make it part of my vacation. Our country is beautiful from Lake Tahoe to the Rockies to the Mississppi River or the sunrise in the Utah's deserts..and you just can't get to relax and take in all that beauty on a plane...

I am not saying there is anything wrong with taking a train because you enjoy the ride. I am saying your justification of doing it because it is "greener" is unfounded. And I do plenty of relaxing on airplanes and have seen some pretty amazing things from the air that you will never see from the ground.

[justme]

There is evidence to suggest that the emissions in the high atmosphere are more damaging that those at the surface.

I know you would ask so I will as well... let's see it.

It is also without doubt significantly less polluting to take the train for short haul journey's.

I don't deny that for a second. Matter of fact I said recently, "I think there is definite benefit to using light rail systems for mass transit in urban areas instead of everyone driving their huge SUV with only 1 person in it. That's a no-brainer."

The other factor is that the "infrastructure" argument could work for largely undeveloped infrastructure countries such as China... it certainly doesn't work for Europe or parts of the NorthEast US, where the infrastructure carbon has already been spent.

Parts, of the top right teeny tiny corner of the US, have infrastructure in place. The rest of the US is seriously lacking and wouldn't be far behind China in their lack of rail.

The New Scientist article also doesn't address the fact that air travel doesn't actually take you to where you want to go. Trains tend to run city centre to city centre, so the journey is virtually complete. Airports tend to take you to some place well outside the city.. and then require further infrastructure (and thus carbon) to actually take you to where you were going.

How do you know where I'm going? Who says I want to go to the city center? I get what you're saying, but if I'm not going to the city center, the journey is indeed NOT virtually complete. The transit you would be using after you fly is in a different category. It doesn't count for the airline. Also, I can think of plenty of airports that are pretty close to the middle of the city. ATL, NYC, BOS, LAX, DCA, HOU, LAS, etc, etc.

The truth is, as with all of these things, it is not either/or. We need to reduce gas guzzling car usage, and in particular, to price gas realistically based on the true environmental cost. We then need alternative fuels including solar, wind, nuclear, tidal etc.. and we need to increase the costs of travel to reflect the damage it does.

Agreed, Agreed, Agreed, Agreed, and Agreed.

[jimworcs]

Justme,

The emissions in the upper atomsphere create NOx. This from NASA

Oxides of nitrogen (chemically abbreviated as NOx and pronounced "nocks") increase the production of ozone at typical cruise altitudes of subsonic air travel. These emissions are formed as a result of burning fossil fuels at very high temperatures. Therefore, aircraft emissions containing NOx increase the production of ozone. Aircraft emit significant amounts of NOx when their engines are at their hottest during takeoff and slightly smaller amounts while cruising

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs10grc.html

I think we are in danger of agreeing Justme... which is probably a first.

[Gromit801]

Well, as an ex-railroad engineer, I have to side with JustMe on this one. Rail travel is exceeding dirty. Just about every rail-yard in the US is on the EPA clean up list. The number of train crew that have died from cancer (diesel exposure) or are ill from the exposure is a very long list.

Every mile of rail in the US is a path of toxicity from leaked oil and fuel, grease (tracks are actually greased in many places to reduce wear on curves), and don't even talk about derailments where massive quantities of toxic chemicals get spilled. Example: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-...uthern-pacific

Passenger travel is a tiny percentage of rail usage, but the rail system as used every day is anything but green.

[JMOThanks]

Originally Posted by Gromit801

Well, as an ex-railroad engineer, I have to side with JustMe on this one. Rail travel is exceeding dirty. Just about every rail-yard in the US is on the EPA clean up list. The number of train crew that have died from cancer (diesel exposure) or are ill from the exposure is a very long list.

Every mile of rail in the US is a path of toxicity from leaked oil and fuel, grease (tracks are actually greased in many places to reduce wear on curves), and don't even talk about derailments where massive quantities of toxic chemicals get spilled. Example: http://articles.latimes.com/1991-07-...uthern-pacific

Passenger travel is a tiny percentage of rail usage, but the rail system as used every day is anything but green.

I am sorry...You are right!!!

But, I was only refering to Amtrak...and yeah that industery is dangerous. I feel foolish and like a complete butt.

I was being narrow minded and talking with blinders on...as far as rail usage in the U.S...

I do feel my claim is right about Amtrak though...and the trains over in Europe.

[JMOThanks]

Originally Posted by justme

You should be reading your own articles again since you are the one who is incorrect... They in fact DO NOT COMPARE train emissions to airline emissions.



This one sentence makes it relevant to air travel? I don't think so. All the data they use in their article is comparing CARS to TRAINS. Not a single comparison was made to an airplane. And is this really the only rebuttal you have to me breaking down your articles? Guess you weren't captain of the debate team.

I can admit I am wrong. You are singling out the ONE article and dismissing the other articles.. No really.

You are one of these people who feel like YOU have to be right.

No my opinion is not FACT...and Your opinion is NOT fact either.

I did look on different websites and yes train is better then driving...but, it can be better then flying.



I thought that this article kinda put it in perspective. If you want to argue even if I stated..."Maybe I was wrong..."...that will be YOU alone.

I do not feel like I should apologize to you because, u got nasty first.

Never was on the debate team. I guess you were.

[JMOThanks]

Originally Posted by jimworcs

This argument will run and run. There is evidence to suggest that the emissions in the high atmosphere are more damaging that those at the surface. It is also without doubt significantly less polluting to take the train for short haul journey's. The other factor is that the "infrastructure" argument could work for largely undeveloped infranstructure countries such as China... it certainly doesn't work for Europe or parts of the NorthEast US, where the infrastructure carbon has already been spent.

The New Scientist article also doesn't address the fact that air travel doesn't actually take you to where you want to go. Trains tend to run city centre to city centre, so the journey is virtually complete. ~Airports tend to take you to some place well outside the city.. and then require further infratructure (and thus carbon) to actually take you to where you were going.

The truth is, as with all of these things, it is not either/or. We need to reduce gas guzzling car usage, and in particular, to price gas realistically based on the true environmental cost. We then need alternative fuels including solar, wind, nuclear, tidal etc.. and we need to increase the costs of travel to reflect the damage it does.

I am a idiot...I do get blindsided when folks like justme. I was expressing my opinion and suddenly I felt like I had to defend myself....

Your right...I did read kind of the same thing.

http://www.greenfudge.org/2009/09/25...-to-fly-green/

But, military jets are a differant story though...

[justme]

You are singling out the ONE article and dismissing the other articles

Actually I dismissed them all, you only chose to defend ONE of them after I dismissed them.

You are one of these people who feel like YOU have to be right.

My wife would totally agree with you there... but I would tend to say it's more a case of when I KNOW I'm right, I feel the need to defend it to the end. Maybe I get a bit overzealous in doing so, I never intended to "blindside" you. But I learned very quickly that when you post something here that requires factual back-up, you had better be good and ready to provide relevant facts, not opinions.

I did look on different websites and yes train is better then driving...but, it can be better then flying.

I do not dispute that it CAN be in certain situations, and I have stated that more than once.

I do not feel like I should apologize to you because, u got nasty first.

Never was on the debate team. I guess you were.

When exactly did I get "nasty"? When I said I thought you were wrong and then backed myself up? Just because I disagree with you and have factual info to support my opinion does not make me nasty. Either way, I was never looking for an apology, only trying to educate you on a subject that you seemed interested in but not very well informed. I do find it a bit strange though that Jim and Gromit disagree with you and you all the sudden flip and are calling yourself an idiot, a butt, foolish, and narrow-minded. And I wasn't on a debate team either, although my mom always said I should've been.

[JMOThanks]

When exactly did I get "nasty"? When I said I thought you were wrong and then backed myself up? Just because I disagree with you and have factual info to support my opinion does not make me nasty. Either way, I was never looking for an apology, only trying to educate you on a subject that you seemed interested in but not very well informed. I do find it a bit strange though that Jim and Gromit disagree with you and you all the sudden flip and are calling yourself an idiot, a butt, foolish, and narrow-minded. And I wasn't on a debate team either, although my mom always said I should've been.

Jim and Gromit did disagree with me and I also told them I was looking at the topic with blinders on. See I am NOT admitting you are right. Gromit is right about Amtrak only using 1 % of the railways. But, trains in general are cleaner then cars and planes. I was talking about passenger trains...Not freight trains.

Amtrak is better but, if it only counts of 1% of a whole industry...then really it doesn't make a difference. But, if you look at commuter trains..most of them are electric and I do believe or electric with diesel fuel. When I lived in Oakland, CA..I did use BART and it is pretty fast and a prefer way to train. Right now California is looking into a high speed train to connect to major cities like LA and San Fransisco.

http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/news/Factsheetenviro.pdf (nothing about planes)



I support people having more opinions to travel this country. Europe and Asia has it why can we? In Europe...you can take a train...and boats ferries and cargo ships. We have government owned Amtrak, car or plane.

This also supports my argument too. But, NOT in the states.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/10/g...ins/index.html

I was referring to the debate comment on being nasty. I think you wanted a argument throwing that comment in there. Like "HA I am right!!'' kinda thing.

[justme]

The horse is dead. You still don't get it. I'm done beating it. Enjoy your train rides.

[JMOThanks]

Originally Posted by justme

The horse is dead. You still don't get it. I'm done beating it. Enjoy your train rides.

and you don't eitherr...I guess I will stop beating YOU now.

[justme]

I guess I will stop beating YOU now.

Completely and utterly laughable.